FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Legal setback for Obama's health care regulations ....





deanhills
Looks as though Obama's health care regulations are being challenged in court. A Virginia Judge found that the law requiring all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine may have gone too far.
Quote:
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a Republican appointee in Richmond, Va., marked the first successful court challenge to any portion of the new law, following two earlier rulings in its favor by Democratic-appointed judges.

The law's central requirement for nearly all Americans to carry insurance is unconstitutional, well beyond Congress' power to mandate, Hudson ruled, agreeing with the argument of Virginia's Republican attorney general -- and many of the GOP lawmakers who will take control of the U.S. House in January. Hudson denied Virginia's request to strike down the law in its entirety or block it from being implemented while his ruling is appealed by the Obama administration.

Source: Yahoo!Finance
standready
Thank you Dean for this topic. Thank you Judge Hudson. I agree that this forced insurance is unconstitutional. Buy insurance or pay a fine - extortion! If you can't afford insurance you probably don't have money pay a fine either. What the h-e-double toothpicks were Obama and the demon-craps thinking anyway pushing this bull.
Now that the republicans have "control", Obamacare will simply not get funded.
This is almost as bad as auto insurance in the state. You must show proof of insurance to get the vehicle license plate but the insurance company still requires you to carry uninsured motorist coverage. By state law, there should be no uninsured motorist.
liljp617
Fair enough, certainly a personal choice. Just don't expect me to foot the ER bill when you're throwing up blood. Can't have your cake and eat it too.
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:
Fair enough, certainly a personal choice. Just don't expect me to foot the ER bill when you're throwing up blood. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

You don't want to pay for my medical care?
Interesting...
It seems that opponents of the bill also don't want to pay for other people's medical care. Maybe you have more in common than you think. ^.^
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
It seems that opponents of the bill also don't want to pay for other people's medical care. Maybe you have more in common than you think. ^.^
I think I understand where liljp617 is coming from. ER as I understand is free everywhere and everyone is paying for that through their taxes. For me that is however not health insurance, but supposed to be an essential emergency service. Some people really can't afford health insurance, and others may prefer to get their own health insurance. People should be given the freedom of choice. Also, I don't agree that it should be done Federally. That should be on a State level, as the State of Massachusetts has already successfully done. The Federal Government should not become involved in the nitty gritty stuff like health insurance, surely they have much bigger problems on the Federal level that should be receiving their undivided attention, such as the economy, unemployment etc.? And the role should be as facilitator, rather than telling all the States what to do and creating double sets of legislation? For example, the Federal Government can come to a decision with regard to Health Insurance being the goal for every individual in the US, and then leave that for the States to implement as they think fit. Rather than creating an almost 2000 pages monster of a Bill that is going to keep legislators and the courts busy for years to come.
standready
deanhills wrote:
ER as I understand is free everywhere and everyone is paying for that through their taxes.

If that is the case, then why did my friend receive from a bill from the ER? I think Emergency Rooms cannot refuse to treat you based on your ability to pay. If you cannot in anyway pay then the ER can get some compensation from the government or write it off.
deanhills
standready wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ER as I understand is free everywhere and everyone is paying for that through their taxes.

If that is the case, then why did my friend receive from a bill from the ER? I think Emergency Rooms cannot refuse to treat you based on your ability to pay. If you cannot in anyway pay then the ER can get some compensation from the government or write it off.
You're right about this. They cannot refuse you treatment, but if you can afford it probably charge you. Or at least where I am at any rate. Also some Hospitals won't treat you if you don't have Health Insurance unless you are at death's door. They will probably very politely refer you to another Hospital or insist on payment up front. That happened to me a few months ago when I had an eye infection. The Hospital wanted me to sign for paying for the treatment, as they were not contracted with my Medical Insurance, but without giving me an estimate of what the treatment would cost me. I then as a matter of principle decided to travel a long distance instead to another Hospital that was contracted with my Medical Insurance.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Fair enough, certainly a personal choice. Just don't expect me to foot the ER bill when you're throwing up blood. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

You don't want to pay for my medical care?
Interesting...
It seems that opponents of the bill also don't want to pay for other people's medical care. Maybe you have more in common than you think. ^.^


If you're not willing to get in the pool with the rest of the population, and you're willing to risk going bankrupt because of some beyond stupid, prideful "I don't get sick" nonsense, then take that risk. But I'm not taking that risk with you. I don't support freeloaders regardless of the policy -- I don't support freeloaders now and I wouldn't support freeloaders within the system proposed. If you're incapable of paying up, that's a different story; if you're capable of paying and you consciously choose not to get coverage with the mentality that you can still hit the ER as the very last option, then you're wrongly taking advantage of people. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too, at the expense of others. That's wrong, regardless of the policy and regardless of whether it's a private industry or state/federal government backing the policy.

As a principle, I have no issue helping people who have hit a roadblock in their life or were born into a specific environment and cannot afford coverage. They shouldn't suffer for bad luck, as it could happen to any person. I take issue with people who are living a perfectly content life but choose not to get health coverage with the expectation that they'll be taken care of by an ER if things get that bad. I wouldn't say an ER should turn them away if they're facing death, but I also do not feel obligated to help them foot the bill -- they took a risk fully knowing what could easily happen, they had the capability to easily avoid the situation, and that was their personal choice.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
I take issue with people who are living a perfectly content life but choose not to get health coverage with the expectation that they'll be taken care of by an ER if things get that bad. I wouldn't say an ER should turn them away if they're facing death, but I also do not feel obligated to help them foot the bill -- they took a risk fully knowing what could easily happen, they had the capability to easily avoid the situation, and that was their personal choice.
Perhaps there should be a special exemption category for those who can obviously afford medical insurance, but elect to be responsible for their own medical bills if anything should happen to them. In effect they will underwrite their own insurance? There will also be a category of exemption for those who cannot afford medical insurance. In the end everyone will be medical insurance card carriers.
hillio
Quote:
I take issue with people who are living a perfectly content life but choose not to get health coverage with the expectation that they'll be taken care of by an ER if things get that bad. .

That's not how it works at all. Even if one has no insurance, if he/she is conscious and coherent, he/she must sign a form stating that they take responsibility for payment of services rendered, BEFORE being admitted. So long as one will sign this document, any and all ER services will be immediately available. If one refuses to sign said document, care can be legally refused by the ER. I have firsthand knowledge of this and have seen and experienced the same in 6 different states. It works the same everywhere.
deanhills
hillio wrote:
Even if one has no insurance, if he/she is conscious and coherent, he/she must sign a form stating that they take responsibility for payment of services rendered, BEFORE being admitted.
Not only that, if the treatment involves expensive procedures and/or drugs, they may have to provide proof of being able to pay for the services, i.e. a health card or cash up front, depending where this is.
Related topics
National Health Care in Socialist Stimulus Bill
Health care pharmacy
Health care definition
Health care data
Americans want universal health care. Why can't we get it?
US Universal Health Care debate
Ethics/Morality of Health Care
Health Care Summit vids: Obama's struggle for bipartisanship
Palin says her family went to Canada for health care
CHANGE: OBAMA'S HISTORIC HEALTH CARE REFORM WINS
Health Care bill
New health care law a godsend for Texas lawyer, family
House votes to repeal Obama's Health Care Law
Obama's health care reform wins in court again
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.